EllieChu

Thanks so much Kevin Beal for finding it! It was the "Myth of Nice Christians" (podcast:476) I should of said that I know it wasn't a call-in show. I will take a look at the others others posted also

I went to see Richard Dawkins tonight and I was very excited to listen to more of his thoughts on evolution and science. His cohost Julia Sweeney (actress) took most of the time to discuss her opinion that why should we discourage religion when it does good for some people. This bothered me and I remembered that Stefan Molyneux did a great video on this question! I couldn't find it anywhere on his youtube channel Does anyone know of the video/podcast that I'm talking about?! I would appreciate any help! Thanks!

I am going to download it to my Ipod tomorrow to listen to, I will be brave! I am curious what you mean by not enjoying meals >. >; What sort of dark tales am I going to listen to? There were some pretty interesting Twilight show episodes I would have to say. I really enjoyed Sex at Dawn. I found a bit on the book that describe it well: "Mainstream science--as well as religious and cultural institutions--has maintained that men and women evolved in families in which a man's possessions and protection were exchanged for a woman's fertility and fidelity. But this narrative is collapsing. Fewer and fewer couples are getting married, and divorce rates keep climbing as adultery and flagging libido drag down even seemingly solid marriages.How can reality be reconciled with the accepted narrative? It can't be, according to renegade thinkers Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá. Ryan and Jethá's central contention is that human beings evolved in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and, often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, frequently overlooked evidence from anthropology, archaeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature monogamy really is." As you might realize, this could anger and make many people uncomfortable.

Haha, thanks for pointing that out and that wasn't a freudian slip I swear! Thanks for the recommendation! I can agree for the most part with you MMX2010, I can't take it seriously when it is used with psychology and/or people use it as facts. I have read the works of Richard Dawkins and have listened to a lot of his talks. I find it so interesting how connected we are with nature and we as humans aren't as special as we think we are. There is a philosopher (can't remember his name) who spoke a lot about how we are on the same level as animals such as pigs and people in his time really didn't like the sound of that xD Actually this picture was taken when a good friend of mine was in beauty school and she always loved doing my hair and take photos. Apparently the hair is working though by some people's evolution standards. These long locks were about to flow right into your pockets! Mwahaha! The hairspray will help with sticking to your wallet and bringing it back and why not steal your soul while I'm was at it! Sorry if that scares you off but I am being silly. You can talk to me without fear, I'm actually shy when it comes to talking to people online and to be honest I was very anxious when I first posted on this forum.

I have listened to evolutionary biologists speak about this topic before. Unlike other animal species, humans need much more time and energy to raise a baby. If a man was to just continue to have sex with every woman he comes in contact with, he can't fulfill the time and energy it takes to raise those children, in turn most of his offspring would die and would not be able to pass on his genes. In the case of other animal species like I believe the turtle, the babies can survive with very little time and energy from either parent. The book Sex at Dawn discusses a lot about the evolutionary nature of human sexuality. I find human sexuality fantasizing and I am sorry if I came off as presumptuous, it wasn't my intent. I think my views and Steph's views on human sexuality are quite different and I know Steph has said he is quite traditional in that reguard.

Of course I found it frustrating? I do have sympathy for men in my life that fall victim to woman who only want to use and abused them and the same goes for woman. That wasn't what I was trying to explain so maybe I was misunderstood. I agree with Steph on most issues, but I am looking at when he points out sociology issues between men and woman as biological drivers. His idea of men sleeping with as many woman as a biological driver is not see as a fact through history. It is his terms he uses for men and woman that frustrated me. I don't see how me being female would suddenly cause me to hate this topic, woman have just as much capability of being evil as men do, this isn't new information.

To answer your question, I find the picture to be an artistic representation of myself rather than an interpretation of what could be deemed as attractive in an attempt to get validation. This could be seen as a sociology response, rather than a biological response. Where do you draw the line between the two responses?

I am curious about these facts that others speak of that Steph talks about in this call-in show. He makes a lot of assumptions, like for example if a woman is sexy it means she wants money and she isn't genuine. This is an assumption, not a fact. He assumes that a sexual woman cannot be genuine and interested in the man. That a woman cannot be both sexy and smart. This is something that has been shown over and over again in the media and society that a woman cannot be very attractive and smart. I do agree that using sex and financial reasons can only lead to abuse. Just as woman use men to give her money to take care of her, men pay woman to have sex with them. Both sexes abuse sex for control. Men and woman just go about it in different ways. Steph also assumes that all woman want a family and really want to suck all of a man's income. A single woman will make more also if she chooses not to have a family, just like a man will make more if he doesn't choose to have a family. It goes both ways. Steph needs to stop assuming what men and woman have as biological drivers. What he is talking about is what he has learned from what society has told him. I have read many books and taken classes about gender studies and woman in history and it is really hard to listen to Steph sometimes. Woman's sexuality is not elevated and seen as beautiful. We are called whores, sluts, cunts for being sexual and religion throughout history have tortured and raped woman because their beauty was a sin. I could go on, but I'm curious what are the thoughts from others. I found this call-in show very frustrating like the person who made this post. I could talk more about how woman are taught as children to use their beauty instead of learning and desiring to be smart. Much of what is excepted of woman and men come from the culture around them, not what Steph assumes is our biological drivers. I do want to say that I am shocked by the results of a third of children have different fathers when tested. When a woman lies about being pregnant or keeping a secret does bother me. I feel like there is more to it than what it explained on the show.

I love the posters you have made with Stef's quotes! Spreading the word with awesome posters! I have a quote, but it isn't made by Stefan, but I think it really encompasses Freedomain's philosophy. I'm not sure who to give credit to for this quote because it was something I had just written down a while back so sorry for that. The quote goes like this: "The "afterlife" we should be worried about is the future we leave our children."

I love the "If you hug someone for too long, it could kill them...so maybe you should ban hugging" This is a good bit for kids and even adults to see.

This is very true especially in my experience. I receive more benefits being a single woman than I would if I were to marry my boyfriend. Especially that I am going to college right now, I receive more grant money from the government versus if I was married and my boyfriend's high income was considered in the mix. The state programs have a huge impact on couple's decisions of marriage. The pill has given us more of an active sex life, but the cost of birth control/prevention is another factor also (which the State controls).

Thanks Kevin for the wonderful resources! It is a great help and I appreciate all the listeners that took the time to transcribe all those podcasts on the one website.

I was curious if any fans of the podcast have converted the .mp3 files to .TEXT files. I would appreciate having many of the FDR podcasts in a .text format because it would be easier for me to be able to read and study his topics. Does anyone have suggestions or advice for this option? It would not only benefit me, but I assume many others

I agree with you that I didn't find it interesting and I thought maybe I didn't understand it. But after looking at some reviews of the movie I am thinking people felt they were smart if they admitted that they enjoyed the movie. Might be going out on a limp, but that could be why I find it irritating. They found it deep, thought provoking and would watch it more than once. I just didn't see that in this film.

I have been recommended the film Waking Life for awhile now and I did watch it recently. I felt the movie lacked direction. I found that the connections the dialogues made, while staying on topic, seemed to just dump philosophy information and not guide the story in any direction. The movie seems to me like a high school philosophy project to me. But many people I know love this movie and enjoy the philosophy dialogue. For others that have seen the film did you enjoy the feel of the movie and/or the modern philosophy? Any recommendations for movies about philosophy or that will at least leave you with existential or profound questions or answers?

It needs to be realized that many gender roles (i.e. “masculine” or “feminine”) are socially constructed, meaning that society and culture create these roles, and that these roles are what is generally considered ideal or appropriate behaviour for a person of that specific gender. And speaking of gender, keep in mind that there are more genders than just the two commonly accepted (male and female), making it even harder to try to fit these stereotypes in your "ideal" boxes. Everybody is going to have different views of what they believe to be true. There is proof of that all over the world. Why do we always look at the differeneces between genders?

Thanks for posting this blog post! Great points and more people need to understand the advantages of home schooling. I think you have to be a passionate parent for teaching and learning to make the most of home schooling though.

In my own experineces it can be a problem. The first therapist I ever saw was an older woman with many religious books in her office. I assumed that it wouldn't be likely it would affect therapy, but her christan morals and bias did show throughtout the sessions I had with her. And I would go home feeling terrible about myself and the decsions I have made in my life. Just remember if you don't feel a connection with your therapist or you have a bad gut feeling about it then seek another therapist.

I am brony and many of my male family and friends are. I go to anime/game conventions and have a ton of fun. To answer the "Why would GROWN MEN watch a little girl's show?" Kids of the 90's would be watching Cartoon Network when shows like Dexter's Labartory, Johnny Bravo, and the PowerPuff Girls ( Lauren faust the creater of My little pony worked on this) were being played. We still watch them today including video streams online. When we found out that Lauren Faust was working on My Little Pony we had to watch. And she did a wonderful job and really involes herself in the community. Of course there are other variables that lead up to the huge My little pony fan community, but this is one part of it. I am happy to see men push gender bias. Go men! I'm glad men are involed in this fanbase and they are doing great things! Bronies for Good is a website where bronies can help others around the world. This is on their website: Bronies for Good as an idea and an organization originated on the/collab ponychan board. On that board there was a thread discussing the idea of transforming the altruistic values of the show and making a positive impact in the world. Idea after idea had been thrown around about on this +300 comment thread about starting a charity, working on fundraising projects of various sorts, or contacting non-profits or charities with the intention of direct collaboration. So hearing people say that these men are babies, that they are weak or retarded really bothers me. I am proud of these men and what they are accomplishing. Also bringing up philosophly, there are actually forums like this one where bronies go and discuss philosophical ideas that were brought up in the shows. Many bronies are intellegiant and helpful people. Of course like any other group there will always be a few bad apples and those apples usually gets the most focus from the media

Hello fellow philosophers! My name is Ellie and I'm happy to join the boards finally. I have started listening to Stefan Molyneux's Podcast actually a few weeks ago, but I listen to a lot of them during the day (I do a lot of driving). I found his website when he did an great interview on Smart People's podcast and I was sold. I am a fangirl now of Stefan and he is a great person to listen to. I love learning and over the years of mostly self teaching I realized how profond knowledge is. I have watched a ton of documentaries and recommendations are always welcome Nice to meet you all and hope to chat more! Have a great day!